Dear Giard
I have to agree with you. In 2008 I gave evidence at a Senate enquiry here in Australia about Australia's Ability to meet its Research agenda. I gave evidence about research in the undergraduate programs with a particular focus on honours. Basically, if we have people going into doctoral degrees with no research background then the 4 years training given for doctoral students to complete was insufficient. Plus, if the Government was demanding research literate graduates for industry then the current lack of research rigour in the undergraduate programs was a problem for Australia. My basic argument was that:
1) There has been a lapse in official attention to research in undergraduate programs
2) Various national bodies have not been able to address the issues that have emerged out of the implementation of Honours programs as part of undergraduate degrees, nor what constitutes research in undergraduate curriculum.
3) Universities, as self-accrediting bodies, have been able to operate in isolation from each other, not having been accountable to each other as far as their Honours, or indeed their entire undergraduate programs, are concerned.
Of course point 3 can be elaborated to include that with in universities individual teachers assess projects and they set the criteria for that assessment. Teachers who do not understand Research or research set assessment criteria within their limited understandings and the cycle is perpetuated.
Identifying the problem is easy, finding a solution is much harder. Here at Swinburne all we can do in our Faculty is ensure we only employ academics who do understand traditional Research. Once people really understand the existing rules I think they are in a much better position to challenge those aspects of the rules that limit new knowledge production. My mantra tends to be " you have to know the rules before you can break them." As a poststructural ecofemininist myself I would argue that breaking rules is important. But first learn the rules of the academy and institutional Research.
Rules are one thing but some things, such as integrity and rigour, are not merely institutional rules they are a basis for allowing others to understand knowledge claims. Like others in this discussion, this is not a devaluation of practice (or artefacts or paintings etc)- but if I am told that the painting is Research I need to know and understand the knowledge claim.
Deirdre
**********************************************
Deirdre Barron, PhD
Associate Professor
Associate Dean (Research)
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
144 High Street, Prahran, VIC 3181
Melbourne, Australia
Telephone +61 3 9214 6091
www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>>> Jacques Giard <[log in to unmask]> 2/12/2010 12:22 PM >>>
Deirdre,
I agree. The common use of the word 'research' as you find in a comment by a
student that s/he went to the library to do some research fits very well
into your category of little "r" research. What concerns me more, however,
are students declaring that their research provided evidence for one
direction or other in the project, but then not being able to provide an
adequate answer when asked about the methodology for the research, the
findings, the conclusions or anything else that we tend to associate with a
research exercise, no matter how minor. It is these cases that concern me
because some of these students assume that they have not only undertaken
research but also understand the process. A few professors fall into this
category as well.
By the way, these are often the same people who become upset when
non-designers dare to design. How can these people design, they will tell
you, without adequate training? Same thing for research.
Jacques Giard PhD
Professor of Design
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
480.965.1373
http://web.me.com/jrgiard/Site/Welcome.html
P Go Green! Please do not print this e-mail unless it is completely
necessary.
On 12/1/10 12:37 PM, "Deirdre Barron" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi All
> It seems to me that the problem lies in the meaning of research. Little "r"
> research" is often used to mean gathering information e.g readings. Capital
> "R" research applies to the type of research which is the focus of this
> discussion- while I agree with requirements for rigour, transferability and
> generalisability in Research, - I would encourage research in undergraduate
> programs before students undertake Research
> Deirdre
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Michael Schmidt (mschmidt)" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: (mschmidt), Michael Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: 2/12/2010 4:03:12 AM
> Subject: Re: An academic question
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Jacques. I agree with your concerns.
>
> Michael
>
>
> On 12/1/10 10:56 AM, "Jacques Giard" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> It appears that my comment was not explained fully and therefore clearly
> created some confusion. Sorry for that.
>
> Rephrased, what I should have stated is that I hear the word research used
> more and more as I attend studio critiques or listen to design faculty discuss
> their students' projects, both undergraduate and graduate, when in the past
> the word was rarely spoken. Therefore, are the students now doing research in
> their studio projects? As far as I can tell they are not. In fact, nothing has
> significantly changed, at least not to the point that credible research
> methods are integrated into studio projects. As a case in point, most of our
> PhD students from professional design programs such as the MArch and MFA
> (industrial design, interior design and graphic design) have no research
> methods whatsoever in their academic background when they enroll with us. Yet
> many believed that they did research in their previous program of studies.
>
> My comments should not be interpreted in the context of credible research
> undertaken by design faculty. Like you, I have witnessed a change in a
> direction that can only be viewed as positive, especially in the context of a
> research university.
>
> Jacques Giard PhD
> Professor of Design
> School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
>
> 480.965.1373
> http://web.me.com/jrgiard/Site/Welcome.html
> P Go Green! Please do not print this e-mail unless it is completely necessary.
|
